>Don't forget about the active desire not to know. Piling up facts
>can't break through such defenses.
>
>Doug
Doug, I've seen you make this point before, but I don't really know what you think Chomsky isn't acknowledging about "the active desire not to know." I don't think he would disagree that people can be willfully ignorant of unpleasant facts, just that when it comes to concealing unpleasant facts about the US in world affairs, the primary mechanism for doing it isn't willful, but institutional. The institutional barriers in the media, the unchallenged presuppositions about the US and it's well-intentioned role in the world, effectively insulate the public from considering the criminal dimension of our foreign policy. Chomsky's point is not if the truth is out there people won't ignore it, just that they aren't given the opportunity to deal with truth at all. I think it's his hope, and not an unreasonable one to me, that if the facts about the US's role in the world were easily accessible, most would not ignore them and many would oppose criminal acts of foreign policy, like a war on iraq to gain control over their natural resources and presumably make it into a client state in the middle east. But I don't think he ever tries to make people believe this is a given outcome. I recall reading an account of someone saying to Chomsky "the truth wins out in the end" and him just giving some sort of shoulder-shrugging response, something like "who knows" or "maybe, I hope so."
Arash